Peer Review of Teleradiology at a Teleradiology Clinic: Comparison of Unacceptable Diagnosis and Clinically Significant Discrepancy between Radiology Sections and Imaging Modalities
Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rates of unacceptable diagnosis and clinically significant diagnostic discrepancy in radiology sections and imaging modalities through a peer review of teleradiology. Materials and Methods Teleradiology peer reviews in a Korean teleradiology c...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN KO |
| Publicado: |
The Korean Society of Radiology
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/c3412d38e42d487ab8d496a639de0dbc |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rates of unacceptable diagnosis and
clinically significant diagnostic discrepancy in radiology sections and imaging modalities
through a peer review of teleradiology.
Materials and Methods Teleradiology peer reviews in a Korean teleradiology clinic in 2018 and
2019 were included. The peer review scores were classified as acceptable and unacceptable diagnoses
and clinically insignificant and significant diagnostic discrepancy. The diagnostic discrepancy
rates and clinical significance were compared among radiology sections and imaging
modalities using the chi-square test.
Results Of 1312 peer reviews, 117 (8.9%) cases had unacceptable diagnoses. Of 462 diagnostic
discrepancies, the clinically significant discrepancy was observed in 104 (21.6%) cases. In radiology
sections, the unacceptable diagnosis was highest in the musculoskeletal section (21.4%)
(p < 0.05), followed by the abdominal section (7.3%) and neuro section (1.3%) (p < 0.05). The
proportion of significant discrepancy was higher in the chest section (32.7%) than in the musculoskeletal
(19.5%) and abdominal sections (17.1%) (p < 0.05). Regarding modalities, the number of unacceptable diagnoses was higher with MRI (16.2%) than plain radiology (7.8%) (p < 0.05). There
was no significant difference in significant discrepancy.
Conclusion Peer review provides the rates of unacceptable diagnosis and clinically significant discrepancy
in teleradiology. These rates also differ with subspecialty and modality. |
|---|